California’s AI-in-the-Workplace Legislative Blitz: California Legislature Passes Four New Bills That May Affect Employers

The California Legislature’s 2025–2026 session ended with workplace-related artificial intelligence or automated technology in its crosshairs. If Governor Newsom signs this suite of bills, California employers may face a number of new obligations relating to AI-driven surveillance tools, automated decision systems, and other emerging workplace technologies.

Below, we highlight four new bills and the concrete obligations each imposes on California employers. Note that these bills remain proposals until the Governor acts, which he must do prior to September 30. If he takes no action by September 30, the bills become law without the Governor’s signature. As a general rule, California laws take effect on January 1 of the year following enactment, unless a different effective date is specified in the bill itself.

SB 947 – Automated Decision Systems in Employment

SB 947 is perhaps the most comprehensive of the four bills, imposing substantive guardrails on how employers may use automated decision systems (ADS) in disciplinary and termination decisions. If this bill becomes law, SB 947 becomes operative on July 1, 2027, giving employers an additional six months to prepare.

Notably, SB 947 is a revised version of SB 7, which Governor Newsom vetoed in October 2025. While changes were made to address some of Governor Newsom’s concerns—most notably, shifting the notice requirement from before using an ADS to after—the core concept remains intact. As a result, the fate of SB 947 is unclear.

What Are Automated Decision Systems in Employment?

An ADS is defined as any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output—including a score, classification, or recommendation—used to assist or replace human discretionary decision-making and that materially impacts an individual.

Key Obligations

• Categorical Prohibitions on ADS Use: Employers may not use an ADS to (1) prevent compliance with or violate any federal, state, or local labor, occupational health and safety, employment, or civil rights law or regulation; (2) infer an employee’s protected status under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); or (3) predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights.
• Human-in-the-Loop Requirement for Discipline and Termination: Employers may not rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision. If an employer primarily relies on an ADS output for such a decision, the employer must direct a human to corroborate the decision using the data collected or other relevant corroborating information. If the employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, the employer cannot use the ADS output for the disciplinary or termination decision.
• Post-Use Written Notice: Employers who primarily rely upon an ADS for discipline or termination must provide the affected employee with a written post-use notice at the time the decision is communicated to the employee.
• Employee’s Right to Data Description: Employers must provide, upon an employee's request, a meaningful, objective description of the employee’s own data used by the ADS when an employer has primarily used an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision.

Practical Takeaways – ADS in Employment

If a business uses algorithmic tools, AI-driven performance management platforms, or automated productivity scoring that feeds into disciplinary or termination decisions, SB 947 may demand a reorganization or rethinking of those processes. If this bill becomes law, employers should begin mapping all ADS tools used in employment decisions now, well before the July 1, 2027 operative date, and should build out compliant corroboration, notice, and data-access protocols.

SB 951 – Technological Displacement: Cal/WARN Act Notice Requirements Amended

SB 951 imposes new notice requirements when mass layoffs, relocations, or terminations are driven by AI or other automated technology. In a notable expansion of California’s regulatory reach, employers who automate jobs will now find their workforce decisions subject to state-level tracking and public disclosure, a transparency regime that would have been virtually unthinkable under traditional Cal/WARN principles.

What the Cal/WARN Amendment Law Provides

This law builds on the existing Cal/WARN Act notice requirements by requiring employers to include additional AI-specific disclosures in their Cal/WARN notices when a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is caused “in whole or in substantial part” by an AI system or other automated technology replacing or automating employment positions.

The Employment Development Department will then publish a summary of technology displacement notices on its website and post a quarterly statewide summary of technology displacements.

Key Obligation – Enhanced Cal/WARN Notice Disclosures: When a qualifying displacement is driven in whole or in substantial part by AI or automated technology, the employer’s Cal/WARN notice must additionally include: (1) the number, classification or occupation, and work location of layoffs substantially due to AI or automation; (2) the job functions of replaced workers that will be automated; (3) the specific category or type of AI system or automating technology that substantially caused the displacement; and (4) the statement “This notice is for a technology displacement” prominently at the top of the notice.

Notably, SB 951 does not define “in substantial part,” does not prescribe a percentage threshold or enumerated criteria, and leaves the phrase open to interpretation. The language of the bill suggests that the Legislature contemplated a functional nexus—where the technology directly takes over job tasks previously performed by the displaced workers—rather than an indirect or minimal connection. Still, this ambiguity is a significant gap that creates both compliance risk and strategic considerations for employers. 

Practical Takeaways – Cal/WARN Amendment

SB 951 signals California’s intent to track and publicize the displacement of workers by AI, not just to regulate the technology itself. Employers contemplating AI-driven restructurings or workforce reductions should factor these transparency requirements into their strategic planning around automation and be prepared for the reputational dimensions of publicly labeled “technology displacement” notices. Moreover, many real-world workplace reductions will involve multiple contributing causes, such as market downturns, cost-cutting mandates, organizational restructuring, and AI-driven automation. The key question is whether AI is a substantial factor, not the sole factor. Where AI is one of several significant factors, employers should consider whether to take a more conservative approach through disclosure, though this will result in the publication of an employer’s workplace reductions. Employers should speak with counsel before implementing workplace reductions.

AB 1883 – Workplace Surveillance Tools (Emotion Recognition & Neural Data)

What the Law Does

AB 1883 targets emotion recognition technology and neural data collection. It prohibits employers from deploying AI-powered workplace surveillance tools for two specific purposes: (1) recognizing, or making inferences or predictions about, an individual’s emotional state; and (2) collecting neural data, such as data captured directly from an employee’s brain or nervous system using sensors or scanning technology, rather than data deduced from the employee’s outward expressions, movements, or behavior. 

The prohibition is categorical, with no exception for well-intentioned uses such as stress monitoring or wellness programs. A narrow savings clause clarifies that employers may use workplace surveillance tools to ensure safety, but only where the tool does not perform emotion recognition or neural data collection.

Practical Takeaways – Sentiment Surveillance

Employers experimenting with or deploying sentiment analysis tools, AI-powered interview platforms that gauge emotional responses, wearable neurotechnology, or any system that attempts to read what employees are thinking or feeling should take notice. Employers should scrutinize their AI vendors’ capabilities closely. A tool marketed for “productivity insights” may, under the hood, incorporate emotional-state inference features that would trigger liability under AB 1883.

AB 1331 – Workplace Surveillance

What the Law Does

If passed into law, AB 1331 restricts the use of “workplace surveillance tools” in restroom facilities. “Workplace surveillance tools” include any system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of employee data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors by means other than direct observation. 

The bill’s core prohibition is straightforward: unless directed by a court order, employers may not use a workplace surveillance tool to monitor or surveil employees in a bathroom. Employees also have the right to leave workplace surveillance tools behind when entering the bathroom.

Practical Takeaways – Workplace Surveillance

Employers should audit their surveillance infrastructure—particularly wearable devices, GPS-enabled badges, and AI-equipped identification tools—to ensure compliance with both the bathroom monitoring ban and the employee “leave behind” right.

Conclusion

For California employers, the message is simple: if you use AI to surveil, evaluate, discipline, or displace your workforce, you may soon be operating under a more intense microscope. The compliance burden is real, the enforcement mechanisms are taking shape, and the reputational stakes—particularly for technology displacement notices destined for public posting—are higher than ever. Employers would be wise to treat this legislative session not as an endpoint, but as the opener in California’s campaign to define the rules of the AI-powered workplace for years to come.

Mintz’s Employment Practice is ready to assist with any questions regarding the use of artificial intelligence in connection with recruitment, hiring, and other employment decisions.

Subscribe To Viewpoints